In their article “Destination structure revisited in view of the community and corporate model” Gajdošik et al. (2017) propose a methodology to identify and evaluate the organizational structure and leaders in a destination based on the community and corporate model introduced by Flagestad and Hope (2001). The methodology comprises extensive network analysis of tourism stakeholders validated by in-depth interviews with expert stakeholders. The proposed methodology supports the decision-making and strategic tourism planning of the management of a destination by revealing the leaders in the destination. By adopting a static and dynamic perspective to network analysis the authors are able to show how organizational structure and leadership in tourism destinations shift from the community to the corporate model over time and how this impacts destination performance. (Gajdošik et al., 2017)

 

The presence of various independent stakeholders in a destination offers the basis for the study using network analysis. In most destinations, cooperative behaviour in terms of collaboration can be identified with leaders who influence the destination development. However, changes in organizational structure of destinations can be observed calling for an analysis of the local networks. (Gajdošik et al., 2017). With their article Gajdošik et al., (2017) respond to researchers’ call for empirical measuring of this change (Flagestad & Hope, 2001). The following research questions is discussed: 

 

“How to measure the change in organisational structure and leadership in a tourism destination and what effects does it have to destination's performance?” (Gajdošik et al., 2017, p. 55).

 

The subsequent literature review reveals that adopting a network perspective to destination leadership is challenging. As destination networks are characterised by enormous complexity network leadership involves the challenges of leading and communicating with individual stakeholders and with the destination network as a whole (Moscardo, 2005; Beritelli, 2011; d’Angella & Go, 2009). Furthermore, Flagstad and Hope’s (2001) two extreme theoretical models of organisational structures in destinations are elaborated: Destinations with a community model consist of “specialised individual independent business units operating in a decentralised way” without a clear dominant leader but with high involvement of the local government (Flagstad & Hope, p. 452). Contrary, a destination with a corporate model is characterised by the dominance of a centralised private business corporation that owns core tourism resources and thus has great influence on how the destination is operated as a strategic business unit (Flagstad & Hope, 2011). In most cases, the destinations’ organizational structure can be placed somewhere between the two extreme models.

 

The value added of the article lies in its methodology. Instead of applying the two organisational models in a descriptive and qualitative way as in academic studies to date, the authors adopt a quantitative network analysis to more objectively examine the change in organisational structure of two Slovakian alpine destinations over a period of 20 years (Gajdošik et al., 2017). In a first step stakeholders are identified. In order to determine the change over time past stakeholders of the two destinations High Tatras and Liptov-Jasna are identified using historical data and material, whereas the local tourism associations provided lists of current stakeholders. The second step consists of examining the relationships between the stakeholders using destination brochures, internal DMO data, websites of stakeholders and historical records (Baggio et al., 2010). The obtained information is validated by in-depth interviews with local experts to define the power of the stakeholders and their access to resources (Gajdošik et al., 2017). Based on network centrality measures the leaders in the destinations are identified in step three. The power of an individual stakeholder is measures by (1) the number of direct ties he/she has (degree centrality), (2) the extent of independent access to others (closeness centrality) and (3) the control over others (betweenness centrality) (Borgatti, 2006; Friedman & Miles, 2006; Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). 

 

The main findings of the study show that there is a trend of a shift  from community based to corporate based structure of destinations with a dominant position of one individual stakeholder. This change can be observed in both Slovakian destinations. The dominant stakeholders are more independent due to their ownership of core tourism resources giving them a mediating position with a higher bargaining and decision-making power. He/She has the most control over the destination and significantly influences the development of the destination. In the exemplary alpine destinations High Tatras and Liptov - Jasna, the change to the corporate-based model is particularly evident in the company TMR, which is the second most powerful stakeholder in both destinations. (Gajdošik et al., 2017) 

 

The authors advise destinations to maintain customer-orientated with two or more dominant stakeholders and thereby exploit the long-term advantages of both models: economic benefits through the corporate model and economic and  social benefits through the community model. Network analysis allows for comprehensive static as well as dynamic mapping of destination structures valuable for the management’s future tourism planning. (Gajdošik et al., 2017)

 

The main findings of Gajdošik et al.’s (2017) article are in line with previous studies that observe a shift from the community to a more corporate model of (alpine) destinations (Flagstadt & Hope, 2001; Pechlaner et al., 2017). The methodological approach combining both qualitative and quantitative network analysis in a single study offers additional value for destination management research. Applying network centrality measures helps to interpret and better understand the complex qualitatively identified relationships between the stakeholders (Creswell, 2009). 

 

However, the expert status of the interviewees chosen by the authors must be reviewed critically since there is a risk that the interviewees do not actually possess expert knowledge. This problem can be counteracted by increasing the number of experts.  A qualitative content analysis can further help to identify similarities and contradictory statements of interviewees about dominant stakeholders (Mayring, 2008).

 

Network analysis seems to be an appropriate instrument to determine the organizational and structural characteristics of destinations. However, the graphical interpretations and presentations of the destinations structures can become very complex making them extremely difficult to interpret (Shih, 2005). 

​

​

Bibliography 

 

Baggio, R., Scott, N., Cooper, C. (2010). Network science. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3), 802-827. 

​

Beritelli, P. (2011). Cooperation among prominent actors in a tourist destination. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 607-629. 

 

Borgatti, S. P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(1), 21-34. 

 

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. 

 

d'Angella, F., Go, F. M. (2009). Tale of two cities' collaborative tourism marketing: Towards a theory of destination stakeholder assessment. Tourism Management, 30(3), 429-440. 

 

Flagestad, A., Hope, C. A. (2001). Strategic success in winter sports destinations: A sustainable value creation perspective. Tourism Management, 22(5), 445-461. 

 

Friedmann, A., Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Gajdošik, T., Gajdošíková, Z., Maráková, V., Flagestad, A. (2017). Destination structure revisited in view of the community and corporate model. Tourism Management Perspective, 24(1), 54-63.

 

Hanneman, R. A., Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Online Textbook. 46(7), 5128-5130. 

 

Moscardo, G. (2005). Peripheral tourism development: Challenges, issues and success factors. Tourism Recreation Research, 30(1), 27-43.

 

Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. 

 

Pechlaner, H., Vlogger, M., Demetz, M., Scuttari, A., Innerhofer, E., Lun, L.-M., Erschbamer, G., Bassani, R., Ravazzoli, E., Maier, R., Habicher, D. (2017). Zukunft Tourismus Südtirol 2030. Eurac Research Bozen. URL: http://www.hk-cciaa.bz.it/sites/default/files/uploaded_files/IRE_ricerca_economica/Pubblicazioni/170526_Report_DE_.pdf[Accessed 02.06.18].  

 

Shih, H. Y. (2005). Network characteristics of drive tourism destinations: An application of network analysis in tourism. Tourism Management, 27(5), 1029-1039.